brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:CzechMate Rfa
(I'm doing a copy paste job of Drew's blog, since he's offline, I do not intend to do this myself, but as a favour.) Recently, there's been a significant RfA for the user CzechMate. Many people think that the result was unfair. There where 30 people in support of the user receiving sysop rights, and 9 opposing it. The result was to not give the rights. I do not believe this was unfair. The users support the rights being given almost all failed to give good reasons for giving the rights, while the users opposing almost all gave some decent reasons for not giving the rights. Because of the good reasons on the opposing side, as I have already said, was to not give the rights. Even though I don't think this was unfair, I do have to disagree with the verdict. I voted neutral on it. If I could, I would be changing my vote to support right now. In this blog, my goal will to be to give the reasons that the supports failed to give. I do believe they exist, so please read this. A couple months ago, Crazed Penguin had a name change. He got the new name CzechMate. Being that it was an accident, most everyone just complained, and then went on with life. I did not. I believe that with that name change, a user change came, too. What was (And no offense) a very immature, and somewhat rude user, shortly turned into a very mature, kind, and soon respected user. It was so different, that one could almost assume that it was an entirely new person using the account. Dozens of users who used to be either enemies, or just neutral towards the user, became friends. CzechMate continues to do just as well. He is now as mature as most of the admins, and even more mature than some. He's been very helpful recently, and keeps the chat clean. Many of the banned users have been banned by him, and for good reasons. He's obviously one of the top ChatMods. He's had previous experience with admin tools, though on much smaller wikis. I have no doubt that he doesn't know how to use them. He's on the wiki a lot, I see him everyday I'm on. He sees a lot of bad things needing reverted in that time, but can't do everything, because he doesn't have the tools. Users he used to dislike, he can now get along with for the most part. And for the users who have had problems with him, I guarantee you that there is not one admin on this wiki that users have not had issues with. I really cannot see how that's a good reason to not grant the rights. In addition to all of this, I've found that he makes an excellent friend, not only to myself, but to others as well. I see users all over talking about him now, and it's normally about something good. In fact, everything I've seen recently has been good. I know that the majority of the users on this entire wiki agree. From both chatting with them, as well as the vote. If anyone agrees with this, I think it would be right to make it so that he's permitted to submit another request 1 month from today. 2 months is a very long time, and being that it was so close, I think it would make sense to make there only be 1 month in between requests. Thanks for reading, and if you skipped anything, please go back and read it, this is really important to many users. -Drew's blog. *'Neutral' 1 month is good, but it's disobeying policy. -- 02:00, April 20, 2012 (UTC) *'Oppose' If I stood back and looked at the vote from a neutral point of view, I don't think I would have been able to have made a decision, it was very close and would have been too close for me to call. That said, a verdict was returned, and it was returned as unsuccessful, and I don't see why we should be making special exceptions. Unsuccessful=2 months waiting time, the nominee knew this when they made the request/got nommed- that's the risk you take when you accept a nom 02:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC) **It's not like all policies get followed, and I feel 2 months with such a close nom, should just be 1 month. -- 02:13, April 20, 2012 (UTC) ***And it's not like you had to wait 2 weeks to have your request, you adopted the wiki. -- 02:15, April 20, 2012 (UTC) **** I really don't get this- you say users should just accept any chat blocks they get placed on them and not appeal them even if they were completely unfair, and yet here you appealing a "block" on making an admin request. And how has me getting admin rights got to do with anything? I never had a failed request, and when the wiki was adopted by MarioGalaxy and myself, we were the only two active users on the wiki. 02:20, April 20, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' If the community agrees, it has the authority to override a policy (depending on what it is). I listed all my reasons in the blog (which was pasted above). *I would support, if he didn't overreact. 11:23, April 20, 2012 (UTC) ** Seriously? ._. Real mature.. -- 11:24, April 20, 2012 (UTC) *** Yes actually. You were real immature. 11:30, April 20, 2012 (UTC) **** I'm leaving, before it gets worst. -- 11:31, April 20, 2012 (UTC) *'Neutral' Much as I like Czechmate, most of the admins on this wiki have been on for a long time and they know more what is best for the wiki. I'd say for the 2 months, just keep editing and maturing and you'll have a better chance next time. *Like Berrybrick, I would have overturned SKP's verdict myself, except CM's reaction and ragequit is very unacceptable coming from a supposedly mature person who wants to be trusted with the ability to severely damage Brickipedia. After that, I really don't think he would be able to handle the stress of someone arguing over a judgement call you make as an admin. 15:00, April 20, 2012 (UTC) * Per SSX and Nighthawk, but . Me and SKP were the only neutral admins, and looking at it myself, I would not have been able to make a verdict (or at least not till looking at a lot of things) had I been asked. Ajr has a point aswell. (Also, the numbers don't matter...) *Completely per Ajr. *All I have to say on the matter is that he should try again later and that now is not the best time for him. Consider this a neutral. - 18:29, April 20, 2012 (UTC) **I don't even quite know what we're voting about, but I agree, ragequitting after a failed nom is the last thing I want to see. (@NXT - What about me?) 18:36, April 20, 2012 (UTC) ***(Probably because you aren't a bureaucrat, unless I missed something important. Again.) 19:21, April 20, 2012 (UTC) **** Oh yes, sorry Jag (I just saw what someone had wrote on the page). * I sense overkill. A verdict was issued. Under that fancy thing we adopted last year, we do stuff not by quantity but quality. The decision was to reject it. You may disagree with the decision, in which case, you can ask someone else to take a look and give their verdict, or discuss it with the person who closed it. There is no need for a mass of forums and blogs. ~ CJC 19:20, April 20, 2012 (UTC)